[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

[Chris Holmes]

Eric Lemoine wrote:
> On Saturday, May 2, 2009, Chris Holmes <cholmes at opengeo.org> wrote:
>> Hey, thanks for ccing me.  The one thing I'd recommend, though I think they're savvy enough to be aware, is to point out the benefits of GeoExt for Ext.js.  That the way our project is set up should help them sell Ext.js commercial licenses, and that we will encourage people to purchase licenses from Ext.js.  We just want our license to be flexible for both.  So they see us deriving images and names from them as a good thing.
> 
> I think I'd be -1 with this. I'd prefer that they don't take business
> opportunities into account when answering our questions. Does that
> make any sense?
> 
> 

Sort of?  But I think one thing to remember is that the whole idea 
behind their licensing is business opportunities.  They want a licensing 
regime that will support their core business, and they're looking to 
structure it to have the maximum benefit to that.

But at this point I'd say just send the email as it is, as you guys 
already agreed on it, and Tim's not around this week.  I imagine they 
are savvy enough to see how this does benefit them.

(also I get rejected by psc list, if someone could approve my messages 
and add me as allowed sender that would be great).

Chris

> 
>> Chris
>>
>> Eric Lemoine wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, May 1, 2009, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey-
>>
>> Thanks for the response.  A bit more below.
>> Eric Lemoine wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Tim.
>>
>> Regarding the first question: maybe we could be more explicit.
>> Currently the question is: "is the application provider responsible
>> for more than incuding...?". Could we add something like "For example,
>> is the application provider supposed to (do this and this)?". This is
>> to make it clear where we're coming from. Makes sense?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I agree it should be more specific.  How about this:
>>
>> If an application includes a script that is a minified version of the
>> Ext source and is not produced by the Ext build tools* (e.g. minified
>> with YUICompressor), I assume this is considered "Conveying Non-Source
>> Forms" and not "Conveying Modified Source Versions" under GPL v3.  Is
>> this assumption correct?
>>
>> If so, the GPL says the object code provider must also convey the
>> machine-readable source.  One of the ways this can be done is to offer
>> access to the source from a designated place (point 6.d).  Is it enough
>> for the application provider to include a notice in the minified code
>> that references the license and gives instruction to download the source
>> from Ext?  I'm assuming the application provider doesn't have to provide
>> access to anything else themselves (e.g. the tools used to minify the
>> source or the source itself).
>>
>> * http://extjs.com/products/extjs/build/
>>
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest looks perfect to me.
>>
>> [In my opinion the answer to 2. is "no" (because I don't see why Ext
>> would choose GPLv3 for ExtJS and they did not want application code
>> using Ext to be released under GPLv3), but I'd be happy to be said
>> otherwise.]
>>
>>
>> This makes it a valid question then.  At a glance, I think many would
>> assume the purpose of the application exception is to allow application
>> code an exception to the GPL.  I understand that things are not clear
>> where they talk about independent works.  (And I think this is part of
>> why RedHat considers the exception invalid.)
>>
>> What we want to know is their intention, so I think it is a good
>> question to ask
>>
>>
>> Ok. Would you like that I write this question? I tend to think that
>> you'll make the message clearer.
>>
>> So I'm +1 on sending these questions (with the current wording) to Ext.
>>
>> Also, whoever sends this to Ext, please CC: the PSC list.
>>
>> Thanks a lot Tim.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 1, 2009, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey-
>>
>> So we have some outstanding questions regarding licensing.  Instead of
>> continuing to speculate, I think it would be best to ask the Ext
>> licensing folks directly.  Below is a draft.  I don't have a direct
>> contact - if someone else does, please let me know.
>>
>> Please send feedback.  If I don't send this out today, my next day in
>> the office is May 11 and I will send it out then (if nobody else has).
>>
>> After writing the draft below and reading more, I am pretty convinced
>> that the answer to 1 is "no" and the answer to 2 is "yes."  Eric, you
>> had particular concerns about the application exception.  Please rework
>> the question if I have not captured your concern.  At this point, I'm
>> most concern about getting permission to use the name GeoExt.  I'd be
>> happy to remove either of the other questions if others think the
>> answers are clear.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> Draft of message to Ext licensing folks
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Hello-
>>
>> I am writing on behalf of a community of developers working on a project
>> that extends ExtJS (2.x) classes with mapping functionality from the
>> OpenLayers library.  We
>> Chris Holmes
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>>
> 

-- 
Chris Holmes
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.